Many do NOT know what an occupation is or who is an occupier; nor can they distinguish between those occupying an area strictly as a police action, and those occupying for the purpose of permanently stealing the land of another.

First, let's look at the dictionary definition of occupation:

Occupation = 2a. The act or process of holding or possessing a place. b. The state of being held or possessed. 3a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory. [source - The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000]

Types of occupations:

Temporary occupation where an area is occupied for the purpose of establishing law and order with a view of leaving as quickly as possible when law and order is established.

Permanent occupation is when an area is occupied by foreign forces with a view of permanently holding the occupied area - wrongful occupation. Example, the Nazi German occupation of Poland where they intended to make Poland German territory and only given up when forced to do so. The wrongful occupation of Palestine by calips and sultans in the 7 th. Century with the intent of making this area which others held title their own and the wrongful moving in of their followers with no intent of ever giving it back to its rightful owners.

Of course some do not understand the right of the rightful owners to retake their land as shown by this comment on a forum on the Internet which even criticizes those calling for an end to wrongful occupation and wrongly implying the re-conquest of occupied land from the wrongful occupiers is wrong,

"You are obviously narrow-minded and uneducated on this topic and an embarrassment to Christianity. I can't believe that you actually believe what you wrote! It is such a shame that you cannot see and/or understand the error of your twisted, brain-washed ideas about Israel and Palestine. In fact, you have everything completely backwards. How can you call the Palestinians greedy when all they want is a decent portion of their OWN land? It is beyond me how anyone in their right mind could think as you do. For the sake of Christ, please do the RESEARCH! and then come back and apologize to all the people you have offended and while you are at it, you better ask God to forgive you too since you obviously "know not what you do".

To be noted, this individual, believe it or not, can NOT even understand that the rightful owners are in the RIGHT; whereas, the wrongful occupiers are not. This individual even has the nerve to call wrongfully occupied lands by the wrongful occupiers - their own land. But note, it no where shows that they EVER had legitimate title, and fails to mention they only had possession of the land by wrongful conquest - illegal occupation with intent to permanently steal it from the lands rightful occupation.

FACTS ON TITLE TO LAND:

What title is:

Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>>

Now note, one may be in possession of land, but not title as they are two distinct things as will shortly be shown.

Possession and title are NOT the same thing:

Let's show this fact that possession and title are not the same thing with illustrattion example provided by an encyclopedia, <<< The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.

For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>>

Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.

Soundness of title - what it depends on:

The soundness of title depends on several factors or conditions precedent:

First, the higher the position of the granter the more legitimate the title is with the highest granter being, of course, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the supreme being. This followed by Emperors, Kings or Caliphs, and Presidents or Sultans in that order.

Second, the earliest granting of title takes precedence over later grants of title.

SPECIFIC GRANTING OF TITLE TO ALL LAND IN PALESTINE:

Now let's look at who was the granter of title to land in Palestine and to whom:

Genesis 15:18 records the conferring of legitimate title to the Promise Land to the Hebrews (Jews) by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael as follows for a record to all men for all of time, "In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (American Standard Version; ASV). That this was to be their land per the promise of the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael is also made clear in Deuteronomy 10:11, "And Jehovah said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people; and they shall go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them.." (ASV). And, this fact is even shown in the New Testament at Hebrews 11:9, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:" (ASV).

Now the "Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish" says this of the inheritance of the Hebrews, the promised land, <<<"The land of promise is constantly spoken of as the inheritance of Israel: the land flowing with milk and honey was given to them by God. #De 4:21, Ps 105:11, &c. So when Israel returns to take possession of the land in a future day, it is still called their inheritance. #Eze 45:1, &c. This all shows that they were and will be an earthly people, but God blessed them on earth in relationship with Himself as Jehovah, and will again bless them on earth when they own the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. In connection with this God calls Israel His inheritance: He hath chosen them for His own inheritance. #Ps 33:12 78:62, &c.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish]">>>

In fact the true God (YHWH) of Abraham had very specific instructions with respect the land in the area he had given them in lawful perpetuity as the supreme being, the maker of all there is as shown at Deuteronomy 19:14, "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it." (ASV); and Job 24:1-2, "Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that know him not see his days? 2 Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof." (ASV); and Proverbs 22:28, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (ASV); and Proverbs 23:10, "Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:" (ASV). But squatters have violated all these righteous commands of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham. And as shown by Easton's Bible Dictionary, <<<" Landmarks could not be removed without incurring the severe displeasure of God." [source - Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary]>>>.

In fact, the Eclectic Notes on the Bible on Deuteronomy 19:14 notes, <<" Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark "Thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance," shows that there is a divine apportionment which is not to be interfered with. The inheritance is common to all; all are sons, children, brethren, and have a common portion in Christ and in the Spirit. But in detail each has an assigned portion, and it is to be our care, according to Deuteronomy, that our neighbour has his full portion. This is in keeping with the spirit of grace and consideration for the good of others which marks the book. We have no daughters of Zelophehad here desiring inheritance for themselves; our care here is that our neighbour's inheritance shall not be infringed upon. The inheritance is enjoyed in a neighbourly way; I can only enjoy your bit of it as you enjoy it, and therefore if I remove your landmark I really defraud myself! It is our interest to see that our neighbours enjoy their full assigned portion. In great part we enjoy the inheritance through our brethren; it is blessed to see them enjoying their portion; no one moving spiritually would wish to curtail it in the least degree. This stands in marked contrast with slaying our neighbour, even though such a thing should be done unwittingly. It emphasises the neighbourly character in which the inheritance is taken up. We get on together by fully recognising the portion assigned to each.

If any one's landmark is removed it is not only a wrong done to him, but it tends to impoverish all by interfering with the way in which God has given things. The clerical principle has greatly tended to remove landmarks, and has deprived the people of God of what divine favour would have made available in the brethren generally. The arrangements of men, and human order, are simply a removal of landmarks "which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance." The commandments of the Lord #1Co 14:37 are fixed landmarks, and are not to be disregarded; they would give to each one his true spiritual place amongst the brethren for the benefit of all. Many of our neighbours have had their landmarks removed, and we all suffer from it, but our care should be to give full place to what is assigned by God to each. The inheritance will only be truly and spiritually enjoyed as we are set together in affection, and each holds his portion in relation to the common joy. To be self-centred, or to move independently of one's brethren, is really to lose the good of what God has given to others for our benefit as joint-heirs with them." [source - Eclectic Notes - eclectic Notes on the Bible]>>.

Another Bible dictionary says, <<<"Promised Land held in trust. Even the people Israel, to whom God had given the land for them to enjoy as landowners, were told by Jehovah that they were not actually owners of it but only held it in trust. He said concerning the sale of a family land estate: "So the land should not be sold in perpetuity, because the land is mine. For you are alien residents and settlers from my standpoint." (Le 25:23) God had ousted the Canaanites from the land for their disgusting practices. He warned he would also take away all title from Israel and drive them out of the land if they followed such practices, and when they later did, they were sent into exile. (Le 18:24-30; 25:18, 19; 26:27-33; Jer 52:27) After 70 years of desolation of their land, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., God mercifully reestablished them, but this time under Gentile domination. Eventually, in 70 C.E., the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and scattered its people.

Within the nation, tribes were assigned sections of the land or cities inside the boundaries of other tribes. Priests and Levites had cities with pasture grounds. (Jos 15-21) In turn, within the tribes families were allotted inheritances. These divisions became smaller as families subdivided their own allotments because of increase in numbers. This resulted in thorough cultivation and use of the land. Inheritances were not allowed to circulate from one tribe to another. To prevent this, women who inherited land (because there were no living brothers) had to marry within the tribe to hold their inheritance.-Nu 36:1-12." [source - Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>>.

Earliest grant of title takes precedence over later grants:

<<<Now, how does this apply to the granting of title to the land of Palestine? Well the grant of title to Palestine is the oldest recorded grant of title in all human history and occurred about 1,500 B.C., by the creator of all there is, and was in fulfillment of an earlier promise that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael had made to Abraham. Therefore, with respect the land of Palestine, the land was granted to the Hebrews, the descendents of Abraham through Isaac, and it was granted before any other land was granted to anyone. So title to the land of Palestine was granted by the highest possible authority and was the first grant of legitimate title ever made; therefore, the grantees, the Hebrews, Israelites, have the strongest possible title due to the fact the grantor was the highest possible authority and it was granted at the earliest time. [[In fact, the granting of title by Almighty God (YHWH) to the Hebrews, Israelites, around 1,500 B.C. was the first granting of title in all of human history.]]

Of course some try to deny that by questioning the Bible, but their objection is without standing. Let's look at the facts. Of course many members of Islam reject what the Bible says, but is this reasonable considering that their Quran like the Book of Mormon is nothing but a takeoff of the Bible? Now the well known rule of precedence is that the earlier document shall have precedence over the later that used information from it just as the earlier granting of land title takes precedence in any title search or action at law over the later. Many overlook the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman as was the Quran and the Book of Mormon. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time. [source - Whose Land Is It? A Study of The Land of Palestine at, by Iris the Preacher, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/ind...64569930&page=1 ]>>>.

Let's first gain an understanding of the granting of land title. Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>>.

Land title is different from possession. Let's illustrate this with an example provided by an encyclopedia, <<< The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.

For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>

Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.[source - Palestine Belongs to The Hebrews Per The Everlasting Covenant With The Seeds of Isaac, NOT Ishmael:, Iris the Preacher, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/ind...64569134&page=1 ]>>>.

Thus as can clearly be seen, The first granting of title occurred around 1,500 B.C. when the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave land title to the ancient Hebrews, nation of Israel, to perpetuity in an everlasting covenant. Before that no one had title, but only possession of land; to wit, that was the beginning of land titlement. And this was by the highest possible authority of all, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the highest authority in the universe so his absolute right to grant title to whom he pleased is of course beyond challenge.

So why the argument over whom Palestine rightfully belongs today? Because many Ishmaelites, Arabs, the greedy ones, want to destroy world peace and tranquility due to their greed for land that is NOT theirs. The Ishmaelites control over 98 percent of the middle east, and some are so greedy they do not want their brother tribe, the Hebrews, even to have the less than two (2) percent of the land that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave to them in perpetuity. This is the crux of the problem - GREED.[source - Islam is Delusional - Does Not Recognize Facts at,http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/ind...64568684&page=1 ]>>>.

NOMADS CAN HAVE TEMPORARY POSESSION OF LAND WITHOUT TITLE:

One can have possession without having a valid title to land. A good example is that of nomadic tribes in the middle east and elsewhere such as the Berbers and the New World Indians, they had possession, but not title to the land they roamed. [[Special note - in the early 1800's some New World Indians were granted title in the form of a titled reservation.]]

The first granting of title occurred around 1,500 B.C. when the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael gave land title to the ancient Hebrews, nation of Israel, to perpetuity. Before that no one had title, but only possession of land; to wit, that was the beginning of land titlement. And this was by the highest possible authority of all, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the highest authority in the universe so his absolute right to grant title to whom he pleased is of course beyond challenge.

Also, the soundness of title depends on several factors or conditions precedent as previously mentioned.

First, the higher the position of the granter the more legitimate the title is with the highest granter being, of course, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the supreme being. This followed by Emperors, Kings or Caliphs, and Presidents or Sultans in that order.

Second, the earliest granting of title takes precedence over later grants of title.

SPECIFICS AND EXAMPLES:

Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>>

Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on centuries earlier, illegally taken in unlawful warfare, etc., but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way - they are simply WRONGFUL OCCUPIERS.

A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF POSESSION STOLEN IN WARFARE:

A Roman emperor had conveyed title to land in Spain to his subjects who were in possession in the early part of the common error, but in 711 A.D. much of this land was stolen from the possessors. Let's look at the historical notes on this from a Muslim source, www.sunnahonline.com , <<<" By 700 CE, with famine in the Toledo, strife among the aristocracy and chaos throughout the peninsula, the Visigothic kingdom was falling apart. This paved the way for the Muslim invasion of 711, which set Spain's destiny quite apart from the rest of Europe.

Following the death of the Prophet (saaw) in 632 CE, the Arabs had spread through the Middle East and North Africa, bringing Islam with them. According to myth, they were ushered onto the Iberian Peninsula by the sexual exploits of the last Visigoth king, Roderick. Ballads and chronicles relate how he had seduced the young Florinda, daughter of Julian, Visigothic governor of Ceuta in north Africa: and how Julian sought revenge by approaching the Muslims with a plan to invade Spain. In dull fact, Julian probably just wanted help in a struggle for the Visigoth throne.

In 711 CE Tariq ibn Ziyad, the governor of Tangiers, landed in Gibraltar with around 10,000 men, mostly Berbers (indigenous North Africans). He had some of Roderick's Visigoth rivals as allies. In the same or following year in the Cadiz province, Roderick's army was decimated and he is thought to have drowned as he fled. The Visigothic survivors fled to the north of Spain, and within a few years, the Muslims had taken over the rest of the Iberian Peninsula bar a few areas in the Asturian Mountains bordering France" [source - http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0075_intro.htm]>>>; these Muslims became possessors of the land of Spain, but they did NOT hold title, and were eventually thrown out and the land returned to those holding legitimate title with this being concluded around 1492 A.D. A wrongful possession rectified.

This same wrongful situation occurred elsewhere with possession being gained once more in warfare and violence, now let's look at another example from a Muslim source, www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/ , <<<" In April 1453, the Turks laid siege to Constantinople. Despite the heavy Turkish bombardment of the walls, the inhabitants of the city were able to repair the fortifications every night. The Byzantines were exhausted but took solace in the old legend that Constantinople would never fall while the Moon was waxing. Then, on the night of 22 May, the Moon rose in eclipse and their morale was crushed.

Mohammed knew of the legend and waited a few days before starting a fresh attack. During the battle a small gate was left open by accident but it was all the Turks needed. The sack of Constantinople lasted three days, as the Moon waned." [source - http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/]>>>; unfortunately the legitimate title holders have not regained rightful possession to their legitimate property as yet from those holding possession by force of arms. Yet the property and title really belongs to the Byzantines who centuries earlier had been given title by a Roman Emperor [Note, earlier title granting takes precedence over later title granting.].

THE WRONGFUL OCCUPATION OF THE LAND OF PALESTINE BY ISHMAELITES:

Let's deal with some historic realities; to wit, the Muslims captured Jerusalem and took wrongful occupation of same. They became wrongful occupiers having NO legitimate right to either Jerusalem or any part of Palestine. Here is what one encyclopedia says on that:

<<<"After decisively defeating the Byzantine forces at Battle of Yarmouk in August 636 A.D, in early October 636 A.D (late Shaban, 15 Hijrah), Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah the commander in chief of Rashidun army in Syria held a council of war to discuss future plans. Opinions of objectives varied between Caesarea and Jerusalem. Abu Ubaidah could see the importance of both these cities, which had so far resisted all Muslim attempts at capture, and unable to decide the matter, wrote to Caliph Umar for instructions. In his reply the Caliph ordered the Muslims to capture Jerusalem.[1] Abu Ubaidah therefore marched towards Jerusalem with the army from Jabiya, Khalid ibn Walid and his Mobile Guard leading the advance. The Muslims arrived at Jerusalem around early November, and the Byzantine garrison withdrew into the fortified city." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)]>>>.They then brought in their own followers to wrongfully occupy the land, the Palestines are the descendants of these wrongful occupiers.

They became WRONGFUL occupiers and now they scream 'bloodly' that the Hebrews, Israel, the rightful titled owner is an occupier because it kicked them out of part of Palestine in 1947. What nonsense for a wrongful occupier to falsely accuse the rightful titled owner for wanting his land back, and kicking out wrongful occupiers.

Reality is that even the rightful owners, the Hebrews, Israelites, who remained in the land were made to pay the Jizya (tribute) illegally, and it has never been returned to them by Islam, how wrong can you get?

Later caliphs went even further in their evil occupancy and lit the fuse for the Crusades which they wrongly blame on others when it was they that caused them. Let's now look in detail at the cause of the Crusades.

THE CAUSE OF THE CRUSADES:

Let's look at what was really the cause of the Crusades that Islam blames on apostate (counterfeit) Christians, and aS usual Islam is found to be responsible and the proverbial fuse lighter. Now here are the facts, Most of Islam blames the apostate (counterfeit) Christians for the Crusades, but in reality Islam caused the Crusades which were the effect or result or consequences of a malicious wrong act by Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. How so? Well simple, in 1009 this Caliph sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event was remembered in Europe and was the spark or cause for the crusades. [[This in violation of their own agreement of April 637 (Rabi' al-awwal, 16 Hijrah)]].

Now let's look at what an encyclopedia says, <<<" This background in the Christian West must be matched with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine [[They stole land that did not belong to them from the Hebrews, Isralites, and others.]]in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, the Muslim armies' successes were putting strong pressure on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.

A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it under stringent circumstances, and pilgrimage was again permitted, but many stories began to be circulated in the West about the cruelty of Muslims toward Christian pilgrims; these stories then played an important role in the development of the crusades later in the century.

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)[[Another land theft.]]. Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista [[The retaking of occupied lands occupied by wicked members of Islam]] still lay in the future. The disunity of the Muslim emirs was an essential factor, and the Christians, whose wives remained safely behind, were hard to beat: they knew nothing except fighting, they had no gardens or libraries to defend, and they worked their way forward through alien territory populated by infidels, where the Christian fighters felt they could afford to wreak havoc. All these factors were soon to be replayed in the fighting grounds of the East. Spanish historians have traditionally seen the Reconquista [[Retaking of lands that belonged to them.]] as the molding force in the Castilian character, with its sense that the highest good was to die fighting for the Christian cause of one's country.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of Christian war against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered the "toe of Italy," Calabria, in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, of course, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies [[More land grabs by Islam that should be returned, but hasn't been so far.]]. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy, as well as a powerful pincer movement on all of Western Europe, created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands, starting at the most important one of all, Jerusalem itself.">>> [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

So as can readily be seen, the actual cause of the Crusades was the land grabbing [[Stealing.]] by Islam from both the Hebrews and the apostate (counterfeit) Christians, and the final straw was the malicious sacking of the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

CONCLUSION:

First, has clearly been shown, the Palestinians are wrongful occupiers of Hebrew, Israelite, lands, and NOT the reverse as some ill informed and/or wicked individuals insist due to their desire to hold onto some of the land belonging to the Hebrews, Israelites.

Second, the granting of title to the land of Palestine by Almighty God (YHWH), the Creator of all there is, was the first granting of title recorded in all of human history, and it was the granting of title to perpetuity.

Third, it is high time that the descendants of the wrongful occupiers brought in by the Caliphs into the land of Palestine return to the lands of their ancestors and stop harassing the rightful owners of the land, the Hebrews, Israelites.

Fourth, the rightful owners of land have an absolute right to retake stolen land from its WRONGFUL occupiers.

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!